I am holier than thou
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2013, 08:41 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(19-09-2013 08:32 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  I can argue geocentrism with excubitor. I was planning to discuss Quantum Mechanics with absols....I'm leaning towards absols. I'd like you input on which would be the more fruitful discussion.Drinking Beverage

Oh, thank you! Would you? All you'll need to do is remind him that if his theory cannot predict what we see when we look at the sky then it is wrong. Not that I expect him to admit that.

I'd honestly rate absols as more capable of thought. She's not capable of expressing that thought, but it's probably there. This guy? Lord only knows. He's not capable of thinking, so it won't be a discussion, but so long as you've got actual sentences on both sides it'll at least look more like one.

I've already made some effort to teach quantum mechanics to dear little I and I. That's about all the remedial science I can stomach for a while.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go cry myself to sleep under a mantra of "ignorance is curable".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
19-09-2013, 08:55 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(19-09-2013 08:14 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
just had a conversation and teased out from his son what he already knew.
...
Excellent. Now I think you are getting the idea.

But you missed the bit about discovering what I didn't know (a very valuable lesson) and then researching those areas.

(19-09-2013 08:14 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
Obviously the various aspects of education include conveying the skills required to process information into various forms of knowledge
...

Bravo! I think you are getting somewhere now. This is heartening.

(19-09-2013 08:14 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
but to suggest that education does not convey any information upon which to base thought and to use as building blocks in the formation of knowledge is frankly absurd.
...

Where was that suggested and by whom? Whoever it was, I'll hold 'em while you hit 'em.

The mechanism is actually like this...

... from the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL)

The Data-to-Information-to-Knowledge-to-Wisdom (DIKW) structure:

Data is a set of discrete facts.

Information comes from providing context to data.

Knowledge is composed of the tacit experiences, ideas, insights, values and judgements of individuals. People gain knowledge both from their own and from their peers’ expertise, as well as from the analysis of information (and data). Through the synthesis of these elements, new knowledge is created.
Knowledge is dynamic and context-based. Knowledge puts information into an ‘ease of use’ form, which can facilitate decision-making.

Wisdom makes use of knowledge to create value through correct and well-informed decisions. Wisdom involves having the application and contextual awareness to provide strong common-sense judgement.

I was teaching that today.

(19-09-2013 08:14 AM)excubitor Wrote:  You make yourself to be some kind of professional mate, but you are trying to be too clever for your own good and have turned yourself into a show pony. Get a grip on reality mate before you explode.

Oddly enough, I take that as a huge compliment.
Every training course I do = show time.

"All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up."

[Image: 30-gloria-swanson-norma-desmond-sunset-b...630-75.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
19-09-2013, 08:59 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(19-09-2013 08:28 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-09-2013 07:36 AM)excubitor Wrote:  I deny that there is any clear evidence to the contrary to anything which I believe. I have done a huge amount of study into geology, astronomy, cosmology. Everything I see in all of these fields which I have the capacity to comprehend as a layman is in agreement with my beliefs which I have learned from the church and the scripture. When I look at the formations of the earth in geology I see evidence of a six day creation and a cataclysmic global flood. When I study the heavens and the movements of the planets, sun and moon I see unarguable evidence of a geocentric universe. When I see all the different kinds of creatures and the complexity of the simplest cell I see evidence for the special creation of the heavens and earth in six days by the Lord God.
(19-09-2013 08:15 AM)excubitor Wrote:  There is a geocentric thread somewhere here where I first joined the forum. Make your comments there and I will wipe the floor with them.

You are wrong. You are absolutely, incredibly, thoroughly, stunningly wrong.

Let us consider the structure of the universe for a moment. It is only possible to account for the motions of the planets if they are orbiting the sun. This has been known since the 1600s. The planets may be observed every night. Their relative angular position may be determined by simple visual inspection. To deny this is to deny reality. Therefore their angular motion relative to us, on Earth, is extraordinarily well known, and it is based on cumulative observation over the last five thousand years with ever increasing precision.

These motions are known. If you deny that then you are denying the reality of looking at the sky. Are you so perverse? I could almost believe it.

It has been the task of all those thousands of years to figure out how and why the planets have the paths they do. Primitive ignorance posits geocentrism; the planets seem to move, and the Earth does not. And yet planets orbiting in perfect spheres cannot account for the observed motions. Epicycles about equants show some improvement. Not enough - the best possible such system can not make predictions as good as our modern observations. Two thousand years ago it was precise enough. No longer.

To account for their motion the other planets must orbit the sun. This is incontrovertible. To deny this one must deny that looking at things tell us where they are. Tycho Brahe proposed the final 'geocentric' system in his later years, after a lifetime of study. His model was that all the other (known) planets orbited the Sun, and the Sun orbited the Earth.

This is mathematically equivalent to the Sun orbiting the Earth if one is considering only motions - it is a simple change of reference frame. I remind you again that one need only look at the sky to gather this data; it admits of only one interpretation.

And yet that had not explained why things orbited each other. This falls to Newton. Mass attracts mass. The sun is far, far more massive than the Earth. It is the centre of the solar system. That is a fact. The watery brainshits that leak from your slack, gaping maw are not thoughts. They are a pitiable comedy of errors. Your "studies" (and I use the word quite wrongly) are worthless. Your conclusions are farcical. Your ignorance is monumental.

Your worldview is not the product of a mind engaging in rational thought. It is born of the rotting corpse of a decaying intellect, beaten down and rent apart by the perverted will of a narcissistic and judgmental mind, utterly terrified of admitting fault, revelling in self-indulgent, contorted, incoherent, abject denial, clinging fast to incredulous nonsense; an abjuration of every possible observation open eyes could make.

What a way to live.
Unfortunately this is typical ignorance borne of decades of lies and false teaching in our schools from the cradle through to university and beyond. Your ignorance of the arguments of Geocentrism is almost complete although at least you know about Tycho Brahe which is unusual. You are rejecting something you know almost nothing about. And that is by design of the "education" system so-called which has indoctrinated you for your entire childhood, youth and beyond.

Keplar, when he derived his laws of planterary motion used all of the measurements of his master Tycho Brahe who was a geocentrist. I can assure you that Tycho Brahe was no idiot. The fact is that the relative position of the planets, sun and moon and earth between the geocentric system of Tycho Brahe and of Keplar ARE IDENTICAL. The senior educators know this but they willfully teach students to this day only the Ptolemaic system of geocentrism, doing so in a mocking and derisive way. They do not tell the sweet wide-eyed students about Tycho Brahe lest they engender in them justifiable doubt about the conventional teachings.

In the Tycho Brahe system the earth is the centre of the universe, the sun orbits the earth and the planets orbit the sun. This is exactly what we observe and brings to nought everything which you said.

You, rather uniquely have conceded this point, in direct contradiction to all your useless waffle about angular motions. On the one hand you rattle on about angular motions and then in the next breath you concede that mathematically there is no difference between the two systems and that they are merely co-ordinate transformation. etc. So having confounded your own waffly arguments about angular motion you then resort to a pitiful rendition of Newtonian physics.

This rendition is effectively the DHL definition of indoctrination. Mass attracts mass. The sun is far, far more massive than the Earth. Therefore it is the centre of the solar system. That is basically the definition of indoctrination. I however am a free thinker. I totally reject this model of the universe which is illogical, that no layman can understand, that clever men can only pretend to understand to garnish the favour of supposedly cleverer and more important men.

However, clear and free thinkers will be forced to concede that there is no evidence that mass attracts mass. The whole system of gravity and inertia is only a theory and has inadequate evidence to come even close to being proved. Even if in the unlikely event it was proved it would still not discount the possibility that the net effect of all the motions of all the objects in the entire universe, the net effect of all gravity and all the inertia results in the earth being the centre of the universe.

Every other observation indicates that this is the case including the anthropic principle and the measurements of cosmic background radiation which even in the last few years is threatening to totally turn conventional science on its head.

In fact, and if this conversation which I hoped would move to the geocentric thread continues, we will see that the evidence for a geocentric universe is OVERWHELMING, far easier to argue than the six day creation. It is an utter disgrace that creationists sidestep this issue and buy into the frantic lies of cosmology and astronomy.

We are on the verge of a revolution in science. The scientific community have been sweeping the truth of the failure of the acentric model of the universe under the carpet since the Michelson-Morley failure. Yet since then the evidences for a geocentric earth are piling up and in the end will bury the monstrous lies of the cosmologists and astronomers.

At that time the house of cards of modern scientific theory will fall in a screaming heap. Like modern day soothsayers the "scientists" will be run out of town. They know this. They fear the mob and no lie is to them too outlandish or too extreme to tell in order to perpetuate their steaming pile of error that they have assembled.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 09:06 AM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2013 09:11 AM by excubitor.)
RE: I am holier than thou
(19-09-2013 08:55 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(19-09-2013 08:14 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
just had a conversation and teased out from his son what he already knew.
...
Excellent. Now I think you are getting the idea.

But you missed the bit about discovering what I didn't know (a very valuable lesson) and then researching those areas.

(19-09-2013 08:14 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
Obviously the various aspects of education include conveying the skills required to process information into various forms of knowledge
...

Bravo! I think you are getting somewhere now. This is heartening.

(19-09-2013 08:14 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
but to suggest that education does not convey any information upon which to base thought and to use as building blocks in the formation of knowledge is frankly absurd.
...

Where was that suggested and by whom? Whoever it was, I'll hold 'em while you hit 'em.

The mechanism is actually like this...

... from the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL)

The Data-to-Information-to-Knowledge-to-Wisdom (DIKW) structure:

Data is a set of discrete facts.

Information comes from providing context to data.

Knowledge is composed of the tacit experiences, ideas, insights, values and judgements of individuals. People gain knowledge both from their own and from their peers’ expertise, as well as from the analysis of information (and data). Through the synthesis of these elements, new knowledge is created.
Knowledge is dynamic and context-based. Knowledge puts information into an ‘ease of use’ form, which can facilitate decision-making.

Wisdom makes use of knowledge to create value through correct and well-informed decisions. Wisdom involves having the application and contextual awareness to provide strong common-sense judgement.

I was teaching that today.

(19-09-2013 08:14 AM)excubitor Wrote:  You make yourself to be some kind of professional mate, but you are trying to be too clever for your own good and have turned yourself into a show pony. Get a grip on reality mate before you explode.

Oddly enough, I take that as a huge compliment.
Every training course I do = show time.

"All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up."

[Image: 30-gloria-swanson-norma-desmond-sunset-b...630-75.jpg]
I have an ITIL foundation V3 certification and the person who trained me conveyed the facts of DIKW and all the other facts about ITIL. You however are rejecting the D and the I. You are prohibiting parents and educators providing data/facts/information. You regard the presentation of data/facts/information as being indoctrination. You jump straight to K and in the process make impossible W.

Sorry buddy. You cannot convey knowledge and wisdom without first giving the forming student data and information. Even in your ridiculous sky is blue analogy, you completely ignore the parents role in conveying to the child what the colour blue is and what the sky is. Nor does your absurd scenario give the student/child enough tools information or data to make a conclusion as to why the sky is blue. You absurdly make the assumption that the student/child understands the principle of a spectrum without anyone having taught them.

In fact, setting aside the negative connotations of indoctrination, what does it actually mean? My dictionary says 1. To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles. Ooooooh. How awful. Isn't that what a science teacher does? Instruct the student in the body of principles of science? You make yourself into a goat if you were to deny this.

What people really mean when they decry indoctrination is that if it is body of knowledge or principles which they agree with then it is "education", but if it is a body of knowledge or principles that they don't agree with it is "indoctrination". Again, just a clever, though spurious use of labels to deride and discredit ones opponent. Not good enough.

Sorry pal. You have fallen off your tree and become a laughing stock. I'm disappointed. When we first started engaging I expected better.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 09:10 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(19-09-2013 08:59 AM)excubitor Wrote:  
(19-09-2013 08:28 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You are wrong. You are absolutely, incredibly, thoroughly, stunningly wrong.

Let us consider the structure of the universe for a moment. It is only possible to account for the motions of the planets if they are orbiting the sun. This has been known since the 1600s. The planets may be observed every night. Their relative angular position may be determined by simple visual inspection. To deny this is to deny reality. Therefore their angular motion relative to us, on Earth, is extraordinarily well known, and it is based on cumulative observation over the last five thousand years with ever increasing precision.

These motions are known. If you deny that then you are denying the reality of looking at the sky. Are you so perverse? I could almost believe it.

It has been the task of all those thousands of years to figure out how and why the planets have the paths they do. Primitive ignorance posits geocentrism; the planets seem to move, and the Earth does not. And yet planets orbiting in perfect spheres cannot account for the observed motions. Epicycles about equants show some improvement. Not enough - the best possible such system can not make predictions as good as our modern observations. Two thousand years ago it was precise enough. No longer.

To account for their motion the other planets must orbit the sun. This is incontrovertible. To deny this one must deny that looking at things tell us where they are. Tycho Brahe proposed the final 'geocentric' system in his later years, after a lifetime of study. His model was that all the other (known) planets orbited the Sun, and the Sun orbited the Earth.

This is mathematically equivalent to the Sun orbiting the Earth if one is considering only motions - it is a simple change of reference frame. I remind you again that one need only look at the sky to gather this data; it admits of only one interpretation.

And yet that had not explained why things orbited each other. This falls to Newton. Mass attracts mass. The sun is far, far more massive than the Earth. It is the centre of the solar system. That is a fact. The watery brainshits that leak from your slack, gaping maw are not thoughts. They are a pitiable comedy of errors. Your "studies" (and I use the word quite wrongly) are worthless. Your conclusions are farcical. Your ignorance is monumental.

Your worldview is not the product of a mind engaging in rational thought. It is born of the rotting corpse of a decaying intellect, beaten down and rent apart by the perverted will of a narcissistic and judgmental mind, utterly terrified of admitting fault, revelling in self-indulgent, contorted, incoherent, abject denial, clinging fast to incredulous nonsense; an abjuration of every possible observation open eyes could make.

What a way to live.
Unfortunately this is typical ignorance borne of decades of lies and false teaching in our schools from the cradle through to university and beyond. Your ignorance of the arguments of Geocentrism is almost complete although at least you know about Tycho Brahe which is unusual. You are rejecting something you know almost nothing about. And that is by design of the "education" system so-called which has indoctrinated you for your entire childhood, youth and beyond.

Keplar, when he derived his laws of planterary motion used all of the measurements of his master Tycho Brahe who was a geocentrist. I can assure you that Tycho Brahe was no idiot. The fact is that the relative position of the planets, sun and moon and earth between the geocentric system of Tycho Brahe and of Keplar ARE IDENTICAL. The senior educators know this but they willfully teach students to this day only the Ptolemaic system of geocentrism, doing so in a mocking and derisive way. They do not tell the sweet wide-eyed students about Tycho Brahe lest they engender in them justifiable doubt about the conventional teachings.

In the Tycho Brahe system the earth is the centre of the universe, the sun orbits the earth and the planets orbit the sun. This is exactly what we observe and brings to nought everything which you said.

You, rather uniquely have conceded this point, in direct contradiction to all your useless waffle about angular motions. On the one hand you rattle on about angular motions and then in the next breath you concede that mathematically there is no difference between the two systems and that they are merely co-ordinate transformation. etc. So having confounded your own waffly arguments about angular motion you then resort to a pitiful rendition of Newtonian physics.

This rendition is effectively the DHL definition of indoctrination. Mass attracts mass. The sun is far, far more massive than the Earth. Therefore it is the centre of the solar system. That is basically the definition of indoctrination. I however am a free thinker. I totally reject this model of the universe which is illogical, that no layman can understand, that clever men can only pretend to understand to garnish the favour of supposedly cleverer and more important men.

However, clear and free thinkers will be forced to concede that there is no evidence that mass attracts mass. The whole system of gravity and inertia is only a theory and has inadequate evidence to come even close to being proved. Even if in the unlikely event it was proved it would still not discount the possibility that the net effect of all the motions of all the objects in the entire universe, the net effect of all gravity and all the inertia results in the earth being the centre of the universe.

Every other observation indicates that this is the case including the anthropic principle and the measurements of cosmic background radiation which even in the last few years is threatening to totally turn conventional science on its head.

In fact, and if this conversation which I hoped would move to the geocentric thread continues, we will see that the evidence for a geocentric universe is OVERWHELMING, far easier to argue than the six day creation. It is an utter disgrace that creationists sidestep this issue and buy into the frantic lies of cosmology and astronomy.

We are on the verge of a revolution in science. The scientific community have been sweeping the truth of the failure of the acentric model of the universe under the carpet since the Michelson-Morley failure. Yet since then the evidences for a geocentric earth are piling up and in the end will bury the monstrous lies of the cosmologists and astronomers.

At that time the house of cards of modern scientific theory will fall in a screaming heap. Like modern day soothsayers the "scientists" will be run out of town. They know this. They fear the mob and no lie is to them too outlandish or too extreme to tell in order to perpetuate their steaming pile of error that they have assembled.

Wow, your understanding of the scientific method and of evidence is so warped that I can't begin to understand where it comes from. Personal delusion?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 09:11 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
Wow...instant asshole...just add questions.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Anjele's post
19-09-2013, 09:32 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(19-09-2013 09:06 AM)excubitor Wrote:  I have an ITIL foundation V3 certification and the person who trained me conveyed the facts of DIKW and all the other facts about ITIL.

Cool. Who was your trainer? I'm guessing you are English by the way you spell 'colour'. I might know them.

Knowing the syllabus for the foundation course, I have to point out that this falls a long way short of conveying all the facts.

(19-09-2013 09:06 AM)excubitor Wrote:  You however are rejecting the D and the I. You are prohibiting parents and educators providing data/facts/information. You regard the presentation of data/facts/information as being indoctrination. You jump straight to K and in the process make impossible W.

Then you need to read again what I wrote.
Each conversations started with an analysis of the data.

I do not prohibit it, I encourage it. I merely dispute your version of facts. What you put forward as 'facts' about your deity are merely assertions.
I think you can see that, right?

(19-09-2013 09:06 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
You absurdly make the assumption that the student/child understands the principle of a spectrum without anyone having taught them.

No, buddy, the child (me) didn't need to have, at that point, any understanding of a spectrum ... merely an observation (data) of a rainbow.

I thought we were doing quite well there, buddy, but you seem to be slipping into ad hominem.

Why set aside the negative connotations of indoctrination i.e. "teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically"? That was how I meant it.
If you want to choose a better word for what the priests did to my girlfriends, fill ya boots, my son.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
19-09-2013, 09:41 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(19-09-2013 09:32 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(19-09-2013 09:06 AM)excubitor Wrote:  I have an ITIL foundation V3 certification and the person who trained me conveyed the facts of DIKW and all the other facts about ITIL.

Cool. Who was your trainer? I'm guessing you are English by the way you spell 'colour'. I might know them.

Knowing the syllabus for the foundation course, I have to point out that this falls a long way short of conveying all the facts.

(19-09-2013 09:06 AM)excubitor Wrote:  You however are rejecting the D and the I. You are prohibiting parents and educators providing data/facts/information. You regard the presentation of data/facts/information as being indoctrination. You jump straight to K and in the process make impossible W.

Then you need to read again what I wrote.
Each conversations started with an analysis of the data.

I do not prohibit it, I encourage it. I merely dispute your version of facts. What you put forward as 'facts' about your deity are merely assertions.
I think you can see that, right?

(19-09-2013 09:06 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
You absurdly make the assumption that the student/child understands the principle of a spectrum without anyone having taught them.

No, buddy, the child (me) didn't need to have, at that point, any understanding of a spectrum ... merely an observation (data) of a rainbow.

I thought we were doing quite well there, buddy, but you seem to be slipping into ad hominem.

Why set aside the negative connotations of indoctrination i.e. "teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically"? That was how I meant it.
If you want to choose a better word for what the priests did to my girlfriends, fill ya boots, my son.
Your girlfriends were in danger of the fires of hell. Of course you had a vested interest in easing their consciences. However these poor girls who thought they loved you have rejected the guidance of their priest who was their shepherd and had no vested interest other than the salvation of their souls.

If they fail to repent and so languish in the fires of hell for the punishment of their deeds the memory of their brief romp in the hay will be no consolation to them and they will not be giving you any thanks in hell. If you have a problem with that you can DIKW it to God and he will DIKW you why you turned those girls away from the fear of the Lord which would have saved them. Their blood will be upon your head and you will be punished ever so severely for having corrupted a good catholic girl.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 09:54 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(19-09-2013 09:41 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
Of course you had a vested interest in easing their consciences.

Hehehe. Well done for picking up on that one. Thumbsup

(19-09-2013 09:41 AM)excubitor Wrote:  However these poor girls who thought they loved you...

Not love. Just a warm shoulder to cry on.

(19-09-2013 09:41 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ... no vested interest other than the salvation of their souls.

Yet one was raped so cruelly by her priest (no vested interest there) that she turned to Islam. Go figure.
Who was guilty of corrupting there?

Huh

You do realise that I don't believe in repentance, gods or hell, right?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
19-09-2013, 10:16 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(19-09-2013 09:54 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(19-09-2013 09:41 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
Of course you had a vested interest in easing their consciences.

Hehehe. Well done for picking up on that one. Thumbsup

(19-09-2013 09:41 AM)excubitor Wrote:  However these poor girls who thought they loved you...

Not love. Just a warm shoulder to cry on.

(19-09-2013 09:41 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ... no vested interest other than the salvation of their souls.

Yet one was raped so cruelly by her priest (no vested interest there) that she turned to Islam. Go figure.
Who was guilty of corrupting there?

Huh

You do realise that I don't believe in repentance, gods or hell, right?
I am tempted to say "doubt it somehow"at your claim that her priest raped her. I know dozens of priests and regard all of them as holy men. I never met a single protestant minister in 30 years that I regarded as holy. I said I was tempted to say "I doubt it somehow" but sadly I know for a fact that there are dozens if not hundreds of priests who have done despicable things to children and young men, and a whole generation who said "i doubt it somehow" and ignored the issue for many decades.

I have no answer for this except to hang my head in shame with all the body of Christ for the deeds which were done against the innocents. I know that I did not molest any young people personally but the shame I feel that my brothers in Christ have done such thins is as deep as if I had done it myself. I don't seek to excuse or minimise these disgraces, and if it is true that your gf was raped by her priest then I kneel before you with all the millions of Catholics in union with the Pope to seek your forgiveness.

As I kneel before the victims and ask their clemency, I also would like my accusers here on this forum to consider one point. I am reluctant to raise this point as it may appear as an excuse. My point is that is that there is a devil who in the parables is portrayed as an enemy of the Lord who sows tares amongst the goodly field of wheat. The devil sows his evil agents in the goodly field of the church in order to discredit the church and overthrow the church. This was prophesied by our Lord. In fact if we failed to see the tares sown in the church then we would doubt that it was the true church. Satan attacks that which is holy, even to the point of sowing his agents in amongst the church.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like excubitor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: